Back on 10th December we faced the ballot box having witnessed the most disgraceful and unprofessional reporting ever seen of the election campaign by the BBC. Our national broadcaster was no longer interested in fair and balanced reporting or skillfully eliciting the views of politicians; it had become a platform for the woke metropolitan elitist views of its staff. BBC interviews were about the interviewer, not the interviewee. We saw Marr with a machine-gun list of peremptory questions that gave the Prime Minister just a few seconds to collect his thoughts and begin his answer to each before the next demand was thrust at him. Marr no doubt preened at his petty victory - but on 10th December I predicted the fall of the BBC -
The Prime Minister clearly has a strategy. First, de-criminalise non-payment of the TV tax. This doesn't mean, as some MSM commenters have assumed, that payment would be voluntary - only that recovery would become a civil, not criminal matter. The 180,000 people every year hitherto prosecuted by the BBC in the magistrates' court would in future be defendants in the county court. As many of these simply can't afford the TV tax, the BBC has been happy until now to land them with a criminal conviction and fine, including a compulsory £15 'victim surcharge'. Those paying it are often foodbank users - the prosecutor is a £4bn a year behemoth. Just who is the victim here?Well yesterday the DCMS launched a public consultation on decriminalising the TV Tax and I'd urge all of you to respond to it. I am not as sure as is Allister Heath in the Telegraph that the result is not in doubt -
Using bailiffs or other recovery methods to enforce county court judgements for such low value debts will clearly challenge the BBC. TV footage of bailiffs seizing the pathetic belongings of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society (obviously this will not be shown on the BBC ...) will further turn the public against the broadcaster; cameras are banned from the magistrates courts, so their vindictiveness is currently hidden.
Quite rightly, non-payment of the licence fee will be decriminalised in two years’ time (rarely has the outcome of a “consultation” been in so little doubt) and the licence fee itself will go by 2027. The Government won’t stop the BBC reimposing the fee on over-75s, a decision which will further reduce support for it.You will note that in all the BBC's online reporting of the DCMS consultation, it never once provides a link to the government website where viewers and listeners can make their views heard. That is hardly the behaviour of a broadcaster committed to serving the public.
There is an alternative to the TV Tax that will allow the BBC to retain much of its Public Service Broadcaster ethos - not the Netflix model, but the HBO model. HBO currently has operating revenue of £1.5bn a year for a worldwide service - and I think a remodelled BBC could achieve something similar. I have been consistently impressed by HBO's output. Netflix, which costs me €7.99 a month, contains around 85% of unwatchable low-quality crap of interest only to teenagers or morons but is worth it for the 15% of decent-quality output. The BBC's ultra-woke preachy, skewed and distorted output is not of interest even to teenagers any longer, so it needs to change if it is to survive.
12 comments:
Its not just about the TV tax, its also about crowding-out, although the TV tax is the wedge issue.
If quality is to be maintained we need to stop a quasi-monopoly undermining competition. The BBC has now moved full tilt in to the podcast market, one that is developing a hybrid advertising/subscrption/pay as you go. There's some really innovative stuff being made and they can't claim any market failure.
There's even a public broadcasting ethos with organisations like the World Affairs Council, Peterson Institute and any number producing current affairs podcasts. (Readers might be interested in the Trade Talks podcast as we move in to our new era)
Driving home yesterday afternoon, I switched to Radio 4 for around 20 minutes (the first time for months). It was The Media Show and they were broadcasting a discussion programme about "the Government's vindictive campaign against the marvellous, irreplaceable, BBC." (My quotes). Every contributor to the "discussion" thought the BBC represented the pinnacle of professional journalism and was beyond reproach. The Government's boycott of Radio 4 was a disgraceful dereliction of duty and should be allowing the BBC to scrutinise it.
This is not an organisation which is going to change voluntarily. My only complaint is that it is an unelected, unaccountable Minister - who didn't have the guts to face her electorate in December to account for her actions so was elevated to the House of Frauds - who is leading the Government's policy.
The main failure of the BBC is down to those who should be policing it and ensuring that they follow their (supposedly strict) guidelines on fairness, balance and impartiality.
No one can possibly defend the BBC in the face of its blatant bias and its stance on the 'settled subject' is criminally irresponsible for an organisation that is supposed to deliver 'impeccable science output'.
The most popular programs are the most profitable and will always be made - provided they don't squander those profits supporting such pap as their political coverage and the like of BBC Alba etc. Their 'non advertising' policy is laughable as they have no issues promoting themselves all the bloody time either.
But let us not forget that the BBC is ultimately the propaganda arm of the Government and will bend to their wil when it suits either side to do so.
The TV Tax is the reason that the BBC is losing all those unequal pay claims by women. When a manager is under no financial pressure to economise, why wouldn't he or she agree to pay over the odds for a piece of 'talent'? The BBC needs the discipline of not knowing where next year's revenue is coming from.
Because of the way the BBC is funded (or so the BBC used to say) the BBC should, as a public service broadcaster:
1) Be used to develop new talent and new programmes using new people. It should not be a vehicle for well known and well established presenters to be extravagantly paid. Once shows and their presenters reach this stage they should move to the commercial sector.
2) Be used to allow different views to be broadcast by deliberately employing a wider range of people to make programmes and at the same time not employing the same people year after year after year.
Fuck 'em, I say. Take their coverage of the recent 'impeachment' of Donald J. Trump, aka Orange Man Bad. Woeful. If you listened to the BBC you'll notice his innocence was neither explored or examined. Why was the (released for the first time between a US President and a foreign political leader) transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelinski never racked through by the likes of Ms. Maitlis of Newsnight fame? Because within lies the doubt that he ever committed a crime - indeed he was only doing his job by ensuring that US tax dollars were going to the right people for the right reason. You'll hear more about this when Senator Lindsey Graham (Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee) begins oversight hearings on what went on in Ukraine in the last two years of Obama's second term. A clue is Jill Biden 'says she no longer considers GOP Senator Lindsey Graham a friend'.
Doing Trump down is a priority for Western media outlets including the BBC.
Steve
I live in the US and I would be interested in an HBO style subscription if it included access to the old programs and series.
I tend to agree with Steve. The BBC coverage of Obama/Trump* has been an absolute masterclass in bias. Add to that the EU, Israel, Climate change etc., you would seriously have no clue if you only used the BBC. I have actually sen fairer coverage on Al Jahzeira of teh ME I/P situation. Needs a mammouth task to save any of it becasue even all the drama and documentaries are riddled with agenda driven bias.
Connetced in a way: when I travelled the US several times a year back in the noughties, in the 2008 POTUS race, Fox was the ONLY station giving fair coverage to anyone other than Obama.
I do so enjoy HBO's regional radio networks and local journalism whenever I drive long-distance across the country.
Does anybody know how they manage it on their budget?
Steve, re Trump, what kind of a trial is it, where those sworn to impartiality refuse even to hear evidence from witnesses?
The BBC - and I'm not fan - can only report that.
The great man was acquitted by a jury of his supporters, party members and close personal friends.
The president, who withdrew state aid from the Ukraine for not investigating his Democratic opponents, was luckily cleared of the entirely proven charges by Republican senators who support him.
Senator John Boozman of Arkansas said: “We, the president’s close political allies who depend on him to remain in power, have considered the evidence and found him to be on our side.
“We did not allow the calling of any witnesses, because they would only have got in the way of our overwhelming support for this great man.
“We did retire to consider the charges, but we just sat around saying ‘High-five if you love Trump,’ then high-fiving.
“Then we all voted, in the great tradition of democracy, to find our friend innocent and his accusers guilty, wrong and not worthy of office. As the American people demanded.”
Trump later tweeted that Senator Boozman was ‘a Boozer and a LOSER! Sad!’ after mistaking him for a Democrat, and then went to bed.
LOL...just being moronic now JPM. You have written complete bullshit. The witnesses were heard and had nothing. It was MORE witnesses (from the woodwork?) that were refused. He was acquitted because there was NOTHING (literally) to make a case on.
Re Ukraine he did exactly as POTUS should, in fact he did what the Constitution bids him to do.
I am answering thus as I actually think you may believe what you have written i.e. not you're even trolling, just conpletely and utterly misinformed.
JPM said @ 11:04
'Steve, re Trump, what kind of a trial is it, where those sworn to impartiality refuse even to hear evidence from witnesses?'
The chance for witnesses like Bolton, et.al came in the (secret) Congressional hearings prior to the vote on impeachment - note that it was Schiff who withdrew the subpoenas. The Senate trail was about the two Articles of Impeachment: the partisan Democrat case was lost because it did not reach the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Due process was denied in the hearings when Trump's legal team were denied access to the room. Furthermore he was not allowed any witnesses for his defence. The BBC said nowt about it cos they hate him.
Steve
Post a Comment